Competition and facilitation in mixtures of aspen seedlings, alfalfa, and marsh reedgrass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing demand for aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) and related poplar species is generating interest in their intensive cultivation. Successful establishment of aspen plantations requires minimizing the negative effects of associated plant species. Competitive and facilitative effects were isolated in field plots containing fixed-density mixtures of aspen seedlings, alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), and marsh reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv.) in central Alberta. Although aspen survival was unaffected in mixtures, damage to aspen leaf area was lower when grown with either herbaceous species than when grown in monoculture, possibly reflecting facilitation through plant defense guilds. Over the first two growing seasons, net competition was expressed as most aspects of aspen growth were reduced. Herbaceous species reduced photosynthetically active radiation, soil moisture, and soil N available to aspen. Moreover, relative yield totals from the species mixtures examined consistently indicated either neutral effects (combined yields equaled monoculture yields) or underyielding. Despite this, evidence of facilitation was also found when aspen was grown with alfalfa, including increases of overall available soil N and transient increases in soil moisture with pulsed precipitation during drought. These results indicate that short-term facilitative aspects of aspenlegume mixtures may be exploited through an agroforestry scheme by appropriately timed harvest of the herbaceous component. Conversely, aspen establishment has limited potential for integrated production with marsh reedgrass.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".